SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a paper published April 16th researchers make the case that we should designate and protect 85% of the solar system as 'protected wilderness'
We make a general argument that, as a matter of fixed policy, development should be limited to one eighth, with the remainder set aside. We argue that adopting a "one-eighth principle" is far less restrictive, overall, than it might seem. One eighth of the iron in the asteroid belt is more than a million times greater than all of the Earth's currently estimated iron ore reserves, and it may well suffice for centuries.
The rational for the limitation is more to do with the nature of human expansion rather than just protecting the environment of the rest of the solar system.
A limit of some sort is necessary because of the problems associated with exponential growth. We note that humans are poor at estimating the pace of such growth and, as a result, the limitations of a resource are hard to recognize before the final three doubling times. These three doublings take utilization successively from an eighth to a quarter, then to a half, and then to the point of exhaustion. Population growth and climate change are instances of unchecked exponential growth. Each places strains upon our available resources, each is a recognized problem that we would like to control, but attempts to do so at this comparatively late stage in their development have not been encouraging.
There are challenges and the authors point out that inaccessible resources, like Jupiter, should be excluded from the calculation and that more research is needed to even determine the amount of resources accessible with accuracy.
Assessing how many tons of potentially extractable resources are awaiting us on those worlds will require a lot more space exploration
Additionally, this is not a limit we are going to hit anytime soon
"Worldwide, the present rate of planetary mission launches is 15 per decade," the authors wrote. "At this rate, even just the nearly 200 worlds of the solar system that gravity has made spherical would take 130 years to visit once."
As an aside, it is not a given that resources in Jupiter are inaccessible with numerous articles on atmospheric mining and extraction approaches and even colonization of Jupiter available.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday May 18 2019, @05:15AM (14 children)
If you don't take those resources someone else will.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 18 2019, @06:25AM (1 child)
Who is that someone else here?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 19 2019, @11:28AM
Any one of the 18 space-capable nations, or the others developing their own capability.
The 3 nations with successful manned launches under their belts (USA, Russia, China), they're 3 nations who will completely ignore everything from ratified treaties, academic papers to deep frowns and tutting fingers at the UN. Only Russia has a good chance of getting heavy kit out of earth orbit quickly to exploit solar system resources (and would probably do it just to annoy everyone else), nobody has any chance of enforcing any treaties outside of our gravity well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 18 2019, @07:29AM (8 children)
Thanks for illustrating exactly why we need strong government to regulate bad actors.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 18 2019, @10:34AM (6 children)
Insane.
Unless life is found (potential.. but doubtful) on asteroids... why does it matter?
Protecting the "environment", is to protect it so we, humans, don't die. And to protect it to "be nice" to other creatures on this Earth.
But what precisely is the reason to protect dead rock? More so, to protect it from mining, which would mean a *better* Earth?! One free of strip mining?
Moving our industrial base into space should be a key goal for any environmentalist. A space elevator too.
But no, how we have clowns all upset that dead rock might be touched.
It's like here in Quebec -- environmentalists get upset we might bill more dams. Wtf?! Dams are, by far, the most environmentally friendly option.
A dam doesn't have all the environmental manufacturing costs that solar does, and once in place? Doesn't kill birds endlessly, and slow down winds (with potential other impact as well), and lasts a LOOOOT longer than either.
And sure, a dam displaces as it creates a new shoreline.. but then other, different creates come to that new shoreline! You're not strip mining, and destroying nature, you're altering nature.
But the environmentalists scream, so then places like Ontario have to use *coal* to power things, because we only have so much power to sell. What. The. Fuck.
The real problem here is, some people will just complain over any change. They think man can somehow live, without making an impact.. but nothing on this earth can. Not microbe, or insect, or creature can.
All create homes. All impact their environment. Hell, many trees poison the earth around them, to prevent competitors from growing there! Beavers cause far more environmental change, as a whole, than hydro electric dams!
The list goes on.
So, the choice is ... what is the LEAST impact we can have.
Anyhow.
Point is.
These are fucking ROCKS with ZERO LIFE on them. FUCK OFF!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 18 2019, @01:23PM (2 children)
What short sighted greedy nonsense. Such attitudes are exactly why we have so many extinct species today and a variety of ecological emergencies. What about careless activity sending small asteroids out of the belt for potential collisions? What about toxic waste, what about some company putting space mines to protect their claim?
So many possibilities for humans to fuck shit up. Maybe try being less of a total individualistic total freedom type? Government is a required aspect forarge groups of humans living together, just get over it and focus on fixing the problems instead of wishing gov would disappear.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 18 2019, @06:28PM (1 child)
Isn't space itself a toxic wasteland? You can't go there without a bunch of PPE - Personal Protective Gear. Starting with your radiation-proof Mormon undies, available from that incorrigible capitalist, Mitt Romney.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 19 2019, @01:49PM
What I don't get, is how my post about Hydro Quebec, power dams, and dead rock, makes the poster above think I'm upset about the government?!
People in the know, would know that the Government of Quebec *owns and controls* Hydro Quebec, and here I'm advocating they *build more dams*. Huh? Guess I must really hate the government, yes?
Sometimes, dead rock is just dead rock. And the response to my statement, as far as I see, clarifies the problems some people have. The 'either/or' problem.
You see, there are two choices in some people's minds. All, or none. Everything must be protected environmentally, or nothing. Government must have regulations for everything, or nothing. Laws must be crafted for all behaviour, or none.
The person replying to my post seems to have this ... viewpoint. That if you don't want everything regulated, you must therefore want nothing regulated (eg, I must hate the government, and society).
Pure madness. True, real, genuine concern and care for the environment, for people, means you must assess each situation individually.
The most logical response to my post, was the person discussing the original article, and resource usage / finite availability. But good grief, can anyone think of a law from 1000AD that is still, unchanged, unvarnished, unmodified, that is a strong limiter today?
The very idea that:
- countries like the US, China, Canada, France, whatever will still exist in 1000 years, is illogical -- history shows otherwise.
Borders will be re-written, countries will fall/change, etc
- culture will remain constant...
Our grandchildren will think us quaint and stodgy.
Our 10/20th generation descendants will think that something we're doing now, today, that ALL Of us, every last one of us thinks is "good", is "horrible" and "insane".
Our decedents 1000 years hence, will have no idea wtf we were thinking, will have an entirely different culture, and won't even be able to reason with many decisions we make, how we live our lives, etc
- tech won't change both of the above
I mean, this entire concept of legislating something many, many hundreds or even thousands of years away, is sheer insanity.
Can you imagine someone at 1000AD, trying to decide if they should pass legislation for .. self driving cars? They already had self-driving cars, called "horses", and they worked very sensibly, when they knew the way home... of course, like today, driver attention couldn't wander too much. ;P
Or how about, people 1000 years ago deciding to legislate... hmm, data protection laws? Nano-tech? Autonomous / AI war machinery? Drones flying near airports?
So yes, let's try to pass legislation that people 300 years, 1000 years from now will .. what?
Just insane.
1000 years from now, we'll probably be spread all over the galaxy. Or maybe we'll have perfect energy -> mass conversion, coupled with some form of unlimited (literally) energy.
But we're going to try to legislate that? Wha?!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by RandomFactor on Saturday May 18 2019, @02:11PM (2 children)
I had most of the same thoughts when I saw the headline...However, the point in the article is not to protect rocks, the environment, space-amoeba, or the view from Kennebunkport.
It is an argument to protect limited (if extensive) resources from uncontrolled late stage expansion leading to exhaustion and the associated undesirable consequences to civilization.
Valid, partially valid, or codswallup, it's a different argument.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Saturday May 18 2019, @02:44PM
It's the old Malthusian fear at work again. Uncontrolled population growth quickly exhausts resources, and then a collapse follows.
Except that, somehow, collapses are a lot less common than they ought to be, and when they do happen, it's because something else skewed things. I think that what Malthusian fear mongers have not appreciated is that life has evolved mechanisms to manage population. Some of these mechanisms predate human and animal life by a few billion years. Makes sense that life would evolve coping strategies for this problem. It can be argued that any organism which does not exercise restraint causes a collapse that hurts itself more than any other. If they don't all starve and die off right then and there, they are left greatly reduced in strength and numbers, ripe for replacement by competitors who were exercising restraint.
I hope that a formal, explicit agreement is not necessary. Enforcement will be rough to do.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Sunday May 19 2019, @12:07AM
When you mine and use metal, or any other material, it doesn't get used up. It doesn't vanish or go away. Turn it all into rockets and space hotels; you can always turn it into something else later.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 18 2019, @10:39AM
BTW -- not faulting anyone parent in this thread, just the clown with the article.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Saturday May 18 2019, @12:58PM
Until we can police the solar system, making rules protecting it as wilderness is pointless.
We can barely police our own planet; actually, while we might be physically able to - we seem to lack the political will.
Once space travelers become self-sufficient, there will be no stopping what they exploit until the Empire establishes order throughout the galaxy...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 18 2019, @06:33PM (1 child)
Or they will be destroyed when the sun goes red giant.
IMO just use them, and if needed we (hopefully) switch galaxy.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday May 18 2019, @07:35PM
If we can wait long enough, several galaxies will merge into the Milky Way, providing an infusion of potential resources that are much easier to access since they don't require intergalactic travel.
On that time scale, we should be extracting rotational energy from black holes and controlling whether or not matter should fall into a black hole.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]